Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why -- even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements -- all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective "micromutations" (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by "larger mutations" ... and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species...(December 2010).)

I don't know about these "mutation breeding programs", but I don't see how this proves anything. Artificial selection is still widely undergone in agriculture, and it has led to the varieties we have today (compare these to the wild ancestors and see the difference).Now, artificial selection is even assisted by molecular markers, so we have direct evidence that the selected trait is encoded by variations localized on the chromosomes. So unless that guy suggests that artificially selected variation is designed (maybe God caused the variation, heh?), I'm not sure what he's up to.Regarding his argument about new systematic species... He doesn't seem to know how species form.

Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why -- even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements -- all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective "micromutations" (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by "larger mutations" ... and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species...(December 2010).)

I don't know about these "mutation breeding programs", but I don't see how this proves anything. Artificial selection is still widely undergone in agriculture, and it has led to the varieties we have today (compare these to the wild ancestors and see the difference).Now, artificial selection is even assisted by molecular markers, so we have direct evidence that the selected trait is encoded by variations localized on the chromosomes. So unless that guy suggests that artificially selected variation is designed (maybe God cause the variation, heh?), I'm not sure what he's up to.Regarding his argument about new systematic species... He doesn't seem to know how species form.

That's actually an interesting point. We know (for example) that Canis familaris has been selectively bred for thousands of years... and yet they are all dogs.

The ID proponents generally consider this to be a case of front-loading... in which case, the ID proponents really need to show the genes for some of the odd domestic dog mutations exist in wolfs/coyotes. For example, they would need to show that the actual allele that creates the smushed noses of pugs or the unique traits of the dachshund (including the variety of coats, leg lengths, and sizes) already exist in precursor organisms.

That's a very interesting tack and I'm curious about the results. I would suspect that the unique mutations do not exist in wolfs or coyotes, but instead can be traced to mutations in alleles that are in wolfs or coyotes. This would neatly destroy the frontloading option.

A similar case could be done with the scottish fold cat, since we know exactly when that mutation occurred in the wild. The problem is that we really don't have an ancestral species for the domestic cats to look at.

The other option for the ID crowd would be to admit that the mutations happened and in the way science shows they occurred, but under the direction of an intelligent designer. Unfortunately, they cannot do that because it would give them the worst of both worlds. They would be forced to admit that science is right and be required to show that their designer of choice was actually involved.

Which pretty much leaves them with front-loading.

It's even worse for the YEC crowd. They must use front-loading to explain the existence of the 670+ HLA-A alleles in the human population. By definition, the YECs must accept that only 10 alleles existed at the time of the Flood and they have to get the additional 660+ alleles in less than 6000 years. Just that would be a mutation rate to turn everyone into cancer ridden piles of jello, but they also have to deal with all the other multiple alleles (not to mention all the human specific diseases that either existed on the ark or came into being since the ark... as Rick would say... "Oops").

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

and click on the abiogenesis link in the right hand column under 'categories'.

I enjoy studying abiogenesis and there are literally 100s of new articles published every year. †I've got many links, reviews, etc.

One thing about abiogenesis, it is simple to falsify. †All someone has to do is show that a required chemical reaction cannot happen. †In the 40+ years abiogenesis research has been going on, no one has been able to say, 'x reaction cannot happen therefore abiogenesis is impossible'.

There's a fair bit of research indicating that comets have a high level of organic compounds and it very well might be that a comet strike dumped a couple of tons of concentrated organic chemicals which got life on Earth really cooking. †We will never know how it happened.

The fact that we can know it is possible and that it did happen and there is nothing (so far) that requires divine intervention is enough.

Just a quick question, before I get into this topic on the front line.

I'm damn sure that in the end they will say something along the lines of: Well if you know all the ingredients and you know all the conditions why not recreate it in a lab. make a life form without using existing dna or pieces from living things.

ThanksMarty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

If your opponents won't even accept that evolution can generate new functionality without intelligent intervention, I suggest you not get sucked into a discussion of abiogenesis. Although there are some great hypotheses about abiogenesis, the evidence base is still virtually nothing compared to what's been proven for evolution.

Ask the people who are claiming to have the answers if they have anything comparable to that single site? If not, it's not on the basis of evidence that they hold their position as some evidence is better then no evidence at all. And no support is exactly what they've got, apart from their claimed insufficiency of their straw-man of evolution.

Stop engaging with their attempts to pick holes and ask them to provide their explanation that, by definition, must have better explanatory power otherwise why are they not just accepting your viewpoint? :)

But there will probably be no "this is how life started" moment, so if they want that they can have it. But to win they need to prove it could not have happened, and that's not possible. All that's needed is a plausible pathway.

And what do they care anyway, they already know what happened! Make them say it!

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Ask the people who are claiming to have the answers if they have anything comparable to that single site? If not, it's not on the basis of evidence that they hold their position as some evidence is better then no evidence at all. And no support is exactly what they've got, apart from their claimed insufficiency of their straw-man of evolution.

Stop engaging with their attempts to pick holes and ask them to provide their explanation that, by definition, must have better explanatory power otherwise why are they not just accepting your viewpoint? :)

But there will probably be no "this is how life started" moment, so if they want that they can have it. But to win they need to prove it could not have happened, and that's not possible. All that's needed is a plausible pathway.

And what do they care anyway, they already know what happened! Make them say it!

I will say there is tons of research on the subject and nothing, so far, says that anything is impossible.

On the other hand, it does not have anything to do with evolution and is a completely different matter.

I have to agree. Make them say what caused it.

You can always play this game with them too.

"OK, you win, evolution is total bunk. What replaces it? What research can be done in the area? What tools, products, and processes might come from it?"

And don't get sucked into the "anthropology, forensic science and SETI are based on ID" discussion. They aren't.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Another thought: even if the current theory was wrong in some areas, it's still a useful approximation. If it weren't at least that, scientists would have stopped using it already. It doesn't take technical knowledge of the subject to figure that.

For comparison, consider Newton's laws of motion. At low speeds and weak gravity, they give results that are generally within the margin of error of all but the most precise measurements. (Just don't look at the precession of Mercury's orbit!

Just a quick question, before I get into this topic on the front line.

I'm damn sure that in the end they will say something along the lines of: Well if you know all the ingredients and you know all the conditions why not recreate it in a lab. make a life form without using existing dna or pieces from living things.

ThanksMarty

"The first 3 or 4 pages are about why the origin of life has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory.

The rest show that there is no insurmountable barrier to the natural origination of life.

Any god could do the job in much less trouble than we know actually has taken place. Unless that is, if you are a theistic evolutionist. In that case, goddidit no matter how. That is actually OK with me.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 21 2011,21:54

--------------"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

Just a quick question, before I get into this topic on the front line.

I'm damn sure that in the end they will say something along the lines of: Well if you know all the ingredients and you know all the conditions why not recreate it in a lab. make a life form without using existing dna or pieces from living things.

ThanksMarty

"The first 3 or 4 pages are about why the origin of life has nothing to do with the validity of evolutionary theory.

The rest show that there is no insurmountable barrier to the natural origination of life.

Any god could do the job in much less trouble than we know actually has taken place. Unless that is, if you are a theistic evolutionist. In that case, goddidit no matter how. That is actually OK with me.

Hi,

Don't get me wrong I fully understand what you mean. But a logical argument could be made along the lines of:

Well even if you have, all the ingridients of a recipe, you don't really have a way of backing the cake. But worse you don't even know what cake you are baking or even if it is a cake at all.

The devils advocate.

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Well even if you have, all the ingridients of a recipe, you don't really have a way of backing the cake. But worse you don't even know what cake you are baking or even if it is a cake at all.

But what's wrong with that?

We start from knowing nothing and progress from there.

They start from already knowing the answer and never changing their mind.

Given the short amount of time that this has been undergoing research compared to the thousands of years they've had (as the default position) I think our position has done fantastically well.

You have the outline of a sketch of a cake. They have a blank piece of paper with "poof" written on it.

Call them on it! Ask them why they demand evidence to a standard that they cannot themselves provide! Ask them why their position is more logical then "we're not sure but here are some plausible pathways".

Give them the link I provided to the Nasa workshop and ask them how filling that cake is compared to their cake?

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

P.S. What's your interest in trying to "break this down?" If you're just trying to understand how Ioseb's arguments are flawed, or you're trying to convince others how he's wrong, fair enough. But if you're hoping to convince Ioseb that he's wrong, forget it. It's not gonna happen.

Hi,

Well my intrest is: 1) Seeing how his argument is flawed2) Learning by his mistake what the real version is3) Proving to others in the forum that he dosen't have a leg to stand on.4) Gain knowlege on how to counter future arguments.5) Have fun.

PS some good new my brother is out! now I'm going to stay there until others snap out of it too... or until they kick me out. But even then I've learned sooo much that i'm going to gatecrash another forum so that I can learn some more and have a good time too.

Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

I'm sure you guys are really used to debating this seeing all th threads on this site. I'd like to share with you some things that i began to realise regarding the debate.

1) There seems, (at least in my forum) to be very few educated people. There are some still convinced that god is behind gravity or lightening and I totally get it that these guys accept that god did it cause they are to lazy or ignorant to do some reading..2) There are a very few who actually know something and they tend to be the ringleaders. You can't "save" them they are lost but you need them to "save" others.3) Being polite helps alot, people sometimes ask really dumb and stupid questions (I do too) but it's not an excuse to run them down if you take the time to explain they listen. Even the dumbest question if answered politely gets respect.4) In my discussions I've tried to avoid any athiest remark or remarks that could be interpreted as offensive to religion. I'm there to see what they've got and to show that they are looking the wrong way in scientific terms.5) Most people have the wrong or stereotype ideas of evolution which I have noticed are continually encouriged by the ringleaders... things like man descends from monkey, or you'll never have all the fossils.. I try to be patient and every time explain why this is not so (i've explained both points like 50 times) and people have understood that it's not the case.6) I do not respond to direct offense, (even though behind the computer I screem!) I shrug it off, i'm not there to fight i'm there to explain. I politely indicate that it's not the cristian way to offend, they should critisize the studies I present and not me.7) Most people as suckers for the truth but are unable to understand the meccanics of biology or of even far simpler things. Analogies I find go a long way.8) Most people think that science is against god and religion, this idea is fostered by the ringleaders. I try to show people that this is not the case and that the ring leaders use science when it suits them.

Just a few ideas.

Marty

--------------"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

I'm sure you guys are really used to debating this seeing all th threads on this site. I'd like to share with you some things that i began to realise regarding the debate.

1) There seems, (at least in my forum) to be very few educated people. There are some still convinced that god is behind gravity or lightening and I totally get it that these guys accept that god did it cause they are to lazy or ignorant to do some reading..

Yes. At least the in the US most people's sum total of science education is one class in 9th grade and one in 8th grade.

Not only that, but they are willfully ignorant. Meaning that they don't want to know that they are wrong.

Quote

2) There are a very few who actually know something and they tend to be the ringleaders. You can't "save" them they are lost but you need them to "save" others.

Yes, The ringleaders fall into two types (IME), the True Believer who is basically a fundamentalist and too ignorant to know anything about his beliefs and what he's saying. But he's loud and a pretty good debater (unless you recognize and point out all the fallacies and rhetorical tricks.

The other type is the guy who knows he's wrong, but has sucked in some True Believers and either refuses to admit his mistake or is making some profit off of it.

Quote

3) Being polite helps alot, people sometimes ask really dumb and stupid questions (I do too) but it's not an excuse to run them down if you take the time to explain they listen. Even the dumbest question if answered politely gets respect.

Yes, yes, yes. Until you discover that they are totally immune to knowledge, in which case a little humor at their expense can lighten the mood.

Quote

4) In my discussions I've tried to avoid any athiest remark or remarks that could be interpreted as offensive to religion. I'm there to see what they've got and to show that they are looking the wrong way in scientific terms.

Yes. Atheism has nothing to do with science. IME, the creationists can't understand the difference between science, atheism, and religion.

In religion, they are told the truth by their pastors or church leaders. They can't understand that science doesn't work like that. It's why they attack Darwin and Dawkins so much. They think that by discrediting them, they are making headway against the science.

To, their entire worldview is fixed around religion being incorporated into their lives. They have real difficulty separating religion (or non-religion) from anything else and can't understand that religion plays no role in science and vice versa. Any attempt to combine the two is doomed to fail (including atheism).

Further, they can't understand that a scientist can say things as a non-scientist. Dawkins is a good example of this. He does good science. He also does good philosophy. The creationists often assume that by attacking one they can make headway against the other. They are wrong and can't understand why.

Quote

5) Most people have the wrong or stereotype ideas of evolution which I have noticed are continually encouriged by the ringleaders... things like man descends from monkey, or you'll never have all the fossils.. I try to be patient and every time explain why this is not so (i've explained both points like 50 times) and people have understood that it's not the case.

A thousand times yes. I'm glad it's working for you.

Strawman arguments are the basis of creationist attacks on science. They can't argue against the actual science and they refuse to learn what it really is.

Quote

6) I do not respond to direct offense, (even though behind the computer I screem!) I shrug it off, i'm not there to fight i'm there to explain. I politely indicate that it's not the cristian way to offend, they should critisize the studies I present and not me.

You're are very good at this. That's the best way.

Quote

7) Most people as suckers for the truth but are unable to understand the meccanics of biology or of even far simpler things. Analogies I find go a long way.

Just be VERY VERY careful to state that is is an analogy and that it is used to illustrate the point, not define it.

Analogies (like our discussion with forastero and the Big Bang) can cause lots of confusion, especially when the creationists attack the analogy instead of the science.

Quote

8) Most people think that science is against god and religion, this idea is fostered by the ringleaders. I try to show people that this is not the case and that the ring leaders use science when it suits them.

Yes.

[quote]Just a few ideas.

Marty

Your points are all exactly on point. Well done.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Most people think that science is against god and religion, this idea is fostered by the ringleaders. I try to show people that this is not the case and that the ring leaders use science when it suits them.

The thing is, those ringleaders are right: Science is against religion. Science is religion's greatest, most deadly enemy... but not because science actively tries to destroy religion. Rather, what science does to religion is far more cruel and lethal than even the most intransigently hostile opposition:Science ignores religion.You may be thinking, if science ignores religion, what's all the fuss about? The answer is that religion cannot afford to be ignored; in order to thrive, religion must be at the center of everything, must be at the center of all spotlights. So when science shows how things work, and gets results, and keeps on showing how things work, and keeps on getting results, all without paying religion any attention at all, for good or ill......when science does all that and keeps on doing all that, year in and year out, decade in and decade out, century in and century out......science makes religion unimportant. Trivial. Irrelevant.And religious believers know it. Religions can die when the last adherent is slaughtered -- but they're just as dead when people stop caring about them. By coming up with usable, religion-free explanations for things, science shows that Not Caring About Religion is a viable option. And since religions have, by and large, lost their former power to torture and kill unbelievers... Not Caring About Religion is an option more and more people are choosing. And this state of affairs is flatly intolerable, in the eyes of someone whose whole life, nay, whose entire existence has always revolved around their religion.That's what the reality-based section of the populace is up against. And that's why Creationists are so friggin' resistant to correction and learning.

Just FYI, it's not that the studies belong to the universities. It's that the papers are often published in for-profit journals. Such journals don't typically provide free full-text access because they're trying to make money.

Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap

It's always amusing to ask them why they believe this paper, that happens (presumably) to support their point of view, is right yet all the others (many many more) that don't support their point of view are wrong.

Obviously you can prove anything by cherry picking but it's always amusing to watch them squirm as they try to justify their why one beats 1000, despite them having only read the one.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings